Gujarat High Court
Chaudhari (Loh) Valjibhai Parthibhai & ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 March, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9107 of 2015
==========================================================
CHAUDHARI (LOH) VALJIBHAI PARTHIBHAI & 8....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 9
MR D A CHAUDHARI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS TRUSHA K PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NISHA THAKORE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 22/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
1 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants - original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing IC.R. No.24 of 2015 registered before the Chhapi Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 478, 504, 506(2) read with 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 It is the case of the first informant that he is one of the joint owners of a land bearing survey No.419/3 situated at village: Mahi, Taluka: Vadgam, District: Banaskantha. The applicants are the owners of the land bearing survey Nos.420, 418 and 419/1 situated at eastern side Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER of the land bearing survey No.419/3 owned by the first informant and other joint owners. The dispute relates to a right of way through the land of the ownership of the first informant. The allegations are that with a view to create such right of way, the applicants herein created documents by forging the signatures of the first informant and other joint owners of the land bearing survey Nos.420, 418 and 419/1. This happened in the year 2004. On the basis of such false documents, the entries were mutated in the revenue record of right with respect to such right of way. It is alleged that notices were issued under Section 135D of the Bombay land Revenue Code. Fictitious persons appeared before the TalaticumMantri causing this to be the first informant and other joint owners. This is the sum and substance of the case of the first informant.
3 The principal argument of Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that the F.I.R. in question deserves to be quashed only on the ground of delay. According to Mr. Desai, the documents alleged to have been forged in the year 2004, whereas the F.I.R. came to be registered in the year 2015. He further submits that there is no explanation worth the name for the inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R. He further pointed out that much before the registration of the F.I.R., the entries mutated in the record of right were challenged before the Collector in the R.T.S. proceedings and in those proceedings also, the first informant lost. The Collector declined to interfere on the ground that the entries were being challenged after a period of ten years.
4 In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Desai prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed.
Page 2 of 7
HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER
5 In support of his submissions, Mr. Desai has placed reliance on
two decisions of this Court in the case of Arvindbhai Maganlal Master vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11031 of 2014 decided on November 13, 2014] and Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9976 of 2015 decided on January 28, 2016] and one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs. Gurpal Singh [(2010) 8 SCC 775].
6 On the other hand, Ms. Trusha Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant and Ms. Thakore, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State have vehemently opposed this application. They pointed out that all the disputed documents containing the false signatures of the first informant and other joint owners were collected by the Investigating Officer and were sent to the F.S.L. for the purpose of seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert. The Investigating Officer has received the report of the handwriting expert and the report, prima facie, indicates that the signatures on the disputed documents are forged. According to them, this report by itself makes out a prima facie case against the applicants. They submitted that the investigation should be permitted to be completed in accordance with law.
7 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the F.I.R. should be quashed.
8 On 22nd July 2016, the following order was passed:
"Let the report be submitted by the Investigating Officer as to what Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER possible time would be required by the FSL to prepare the report. Detail shall be obtained from the FSL in writing.
The adinterim relief granted earlier shall continue till then.
Let the matter appear on 29th July, 2016. "
9 Thereafter, on 21st February 2017, the following order was passed:
"1. This matter is pending for final disposal past more than two years only because the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been able to complete the analysis and file its report.
2. The Police SubInspector of the Chhapi Police Station, i.e., the Investigating Officer has been informed by the Incharge Assistant Director, Document Division, DFS, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar that they would still take about four weeks before the report is prepared of the analysis of the handwritings.
3. The Incharge Assistant Director, Document Division, DFS, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar is directed to give top priority to this investigation and see to it that by the next date of hearing, the report is before this Court. The fate of this matter is dependent on the report of the FSL.
4. A week before the returnable date, the learned APP shall, once again, inform the investigating officer to talk to the FSL and obtain the report.
5. The interim relief, granted earlier, to continue till the next date of hearing.
6. Post the matter on 22.03.2017 on top of the board."
10 As noted above, the handwriting expert's opinion is now on record. According to the report of the handwriting expert, the signatures on the documents are found to be forged.
11 Should this Court quash the F.I.R. by accepting the submission of Mr. Desai that there has been a gross delay of ten years in registering the F.I.R. It is true that the prompt and early reporting of the occurrence of the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding the Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER truth of its version. The first informant in a given case also owes an explanation to explain the delay. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. would not make the case of the first informant improbable when such delay is properly explained. In the case at hand, the first informant has said in so many words that no sooner it came to their notice that false documents have been created, they thought fit to register the F.I.R. It is true that before the registration of the F.I.R., they did initiate proceedings before the revenue authority known as R.T.S. 12 Today, I am confronted with a situation where there is a clearcut report of the handwriting expert stating that the signatures are forged, and on the other hand, a strong assertion on the part of the applicants that there is a gross delay of almost a decade in registering the F.I.R.
13 The general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". The principle is reflected in the wellknown maxim "nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi" (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). In this context, I may quote the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [AIR 2007 SC 2762] as under:
"14. The general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". The principle is reflected in the wellknown maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance, Articles 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the Act. It is settled law that a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a Court of Law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a Court of Law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict."
Page 5 of 7
HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER
14 In the case of Sirajul and others vs. State of U.P. [AIR 2015 SC
(Supp) 1875, the same principle i.e. "a crime never dies" has been reiterated observing as under:
"9 On the other hand, respondent No. 2complainant submitted that bar of limitation does not apply beyond the statutory bar under Section 468, Cr.P.C. A crime never dies. A criminal offence is a wrong against the society even though committed against an individual and thus the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of delay. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [(2007) 7 SCC 394 : (AIR 2007 SC 2762].
15 Thus, it is evident that the question of delay in launching the criminal prosecution may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in arriving at the final decision. But, it cannot itself be a ground for quashing the F.I.R.
16 More so, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others [AIR 2011 SCC 2112], the issue of limitation has to be examined in light of the gravity of the charge.
17 As on date, it can be said that there is a prima facie case against the applicants. I am of the view that the investigation should be permitted to be completed in accordance with law.
18 In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice stands discharged. The adinterim order granted earlier stands vacated.
19 At this stage, Mr. Desai, the learned counsel made a request that since his clients have been protected since 2015 and as this Court is not inclined to entertain this quashing application, the interim protection Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/9107/2015 ORDER may be continued for some more time so that his clients can prefer an anticipatory bail application before the Court concerned or they intend to approach the Honourable Supreme Court. The interim protection granted earlier shall continue for a period of two more weeks to enable the applicants to avail of the appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 10:09:28 IST 2017